Gateway 3

USING DATA TO PLAN AND IMPROVE

ABOUT GATEWAY 3
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Gateway 3 evaluates whether or not PL providers have an evaluation model in place to consistently improve their PL services using a model based on Thomas Guskey’s Five Levels of Professional Development Evaluation Framework. 

Specifically, Gateway 3 ensures PL providers:

  • Evaluate the effectiveness of both their PL services and individual coaches/facilitators;
  • Use those data to improve their services and 
  • Have systems and processes for learning about client goals, resources, and requirements and for hiring and training facilitators and coaches.
PLPG Rubric Home Page
Gateway 1 scoring
gateway 2 scoring
gateway 3 scoring
GLOSSARY + FAQ

Total Indicators: 3 | Minimum Passing Score: 5 out of 6 points

2 points:

  • Professional learning provider evaluates the impact of its professional learning services on three or more Guskey levels

1 point:

  • Professional learning provider evaluates the impact of its professional learning services on two Guskey levels

0 points:

  • Professional learning provider evaluates the impact of its professional learning services on fewer than two Guskey levels.

Sample Evidence Collection

Reviewers look for and record:

  • Examples of collecting data on the impact of professional learning for one client on at least three Guskey levels of evaluation. 
  • Evidence that the professional learning provider engages participants to provide feedback on the quality of services and/or facilitation.
  • Instances in which the provider measures the effectiveness of professional learning in a variety of formats, such as:
    • Evidence of pre- and post-professional learning meetings with the provider and the client.
    • Collection of self-reporting on quality of implementation as a result of professional learning.
    • Use of quantitative and/or qualitative data.
    • In-person and/or video observations. 
    • Surveys.
    • Interviews.
    • Focus groups.
  • Specific data demonstrating the impact of improvement on the quality of the professional learning (e.g., increase in net promoter scores, participant scoring of professional learning impact and effectiveness, and student data pulled from the HQIM).

2 points:

  • Professional learning provider clearly describes a structured process for sharing and debriefing evaluation or impact data with district partners. 
  • Professional learning provider demonstrates how data is collaboratively analyzed with the district and used to inform decision making, improve professional learning services, and/or address identified needs. 

1 point:

  • Professional learning provider describes a partial or inconsistent process for sharing evaluation or impact data with district partners.
  • Professional learning provider references reviewing or discussing data but provides limited detail about collaborative analysis, decision making, or how findings are used to improve services. 
  • Professional learning provider gives examples of improvement actions that are vague, generalized, reactive, or insufficiently connected to the data collected.

0 points:

  • Professional learning provider provides little or no evidence of a process for sharing, analyzing, or using evaluation or impact data with district partners and
  • Professional learning provider examples are missing, unclear, or unrelated to improving professional learning services.

Sample Evidence Collection

Reviewers look for and record:

  • Evidence that the professional learning provider engages participants to provide feedback on the quality of services and/or facilitation.
  • Provides specific examples of how findings resulted in meaningful adjustments to services, supports, facilitation, content, or implementation approaches

2 points:

  • Professional learning provider has a defined process to evaluate facilitator/coach effectiveness and address individual facilitator needs, and 
  • Professional learning provider uses this data to improve overall services.

1 point:

  • Professional learning provider has a process for evaluating facilitator/coach effectiveness, but 
  • Professional learning provider does not use this data to improve overall services.

0 points:

  • Professional learning provider does not evaluate facilitator/coach effectiveness, and 
  • Professional learning provider does not use data to improve overall services.

Sample Evidence Collection

Reviewers look for and record:

  • A process for evaluating facilitators with the goal of improvement and maintenance.
  • Specific, concrete examples of how facilitators are evaluated (e.g., examples of timelines, self-evaluations, agendas, surveys, feedback protocols, routines, and/or a measurement system).
  • A description of how the provider uses data from evaluations of facilitators to improve overall services.
  • A description of how the process for evaluating facilitators was used to address an individual facilitator’s needs.
Scroll to Top